Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is decisive. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H records zero wins. The database shows a clean sweep for the 270HX Plus across every workload category, from single-threaded tasks to heavily parallel rendering workloads.

The 270HX Plus sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the 358H ranks at the 87th percentile. That gap in percentile placement reflects a substantial performance tier difference rather than a marginal edge. The average benchmark score for the 270HX Plus is 61834, compared to 40967 for the 358H, a difference of roughly 51% in aggregate performance.

For single-threaded workloads, the 270HX Plus holds a meaningful but not overwhelming advantage. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4764 versus 4124, a 15.5% lead. This suggests the 270HX Plus is better suited for lightly threaded applications where clock speed and per-core efficiency dominate. The 358H remains competitive in this area but trails by a noticeable margin.

For multi-threaded workloads, the 270HX Plus pulls far ahead. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result shows 41913 versus 18747, a 123.6% advantage. This is the largest single gap in the entire comparison. The 20-core, 20-thread configuration of the 270HX Plus provides a clear edge in rendering, video encoding, and other parallel tasks. The 16-core, 16-thread 358H cannot match that throughput.

Compression and encryption workloads also favor the 270HX Plus strongly. PassMark data compression scores 493179 versus 332508, a 48.3% lead. Data encryption scores 37813 versus 26046, a 45.2% lead. These results indicate the 270HX Plus handles data-intensive operations with substantially higher throughput, making it the stronger choice for file archiving, database work, and secure data handling.

Physics simulations show the narrowest gap. PassMark physics scores 3843 versus 3021, a 27.2% lead for the 270HX Plus. This remains a comfortable margin, but it is the closest result in the entire comparison. The floating-point math test shows a 57.5% lead (163567 versus 103842), while integer math shows a 47.3% lead (122449 versus 83147). Extended instruction workloads show a 44% lead (39283 versus 27274).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different underlying designs. The Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Core Ultra X7 358H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, codenamed Panther Lake, and is built on a 3 nm process at Intel. Both use 3 nm fabrication, but the foundries differ.

Core counts differ significantly. The 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts in both cases. The 270HX Plus provides 25% more cores and threads.

Clock speeds favor the 270HX Plus as well. Its base clock is 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The 358H operates at a 1.90 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost. The 270HX Plus boosts nearly 500 MHz higher, which contributes to its single-thread performance advantage.

Cache configurations differ primarily in L3 capacity. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The 270HX Plus has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 358H has 18 MB. This 12 MB difference in L3 capacity provides the 270HX Plus with more on-die storage for frequently accessed data.

Memory support diverges. The 270HX Plus supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 358H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The 358H thus has a 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth advantage, which does not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

PCIe connectivity differs substantially. The 270HX Plus offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the 358H offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. The 270HX Plus provides significantly more PCIe bandwidth for discrete GPUs, NVMe storage, and other expansion devices. Integrated graphics also differ: the 270HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 358H uses Arc B390.

The 270HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The 358H has a locked multiplier. The 270HX Plus uses socket Intel BGA 2114, while the 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. The 270HX Plus has a 55 W TDP rating, while the 358H is rated at 25 W, indicating different power envelopes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows the most dramatic result. The 270HX Plus scores 5917 against 2080 for the 358H, a 184.5% advantage. This massive gap in single-core performance is unexpected given the clock speed difference of roughly 500 MHz. The 358H's 2080 score appears anomalously low for a modern processor, but the recorded data stands as measured.

Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 97.7% lead for the 270HX Plus (596 versus 301.5). Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 46.6% lead (2485 versus 1695). The R23 result is the outlier in magnitude, but all single-core results favor the 270HX Plus by substantial margins.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 123.6% lead for the 270HX Plus (41913 versus 18747). This aligns with the core count and clock advantages. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 46.6% lead (17603 versus 12011), while Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 39.5% lead (4224 versus 3027). The R23 multi-core gap is larger than the R20 and R15 gaps, suggesting the longer rendering workload amplifies the 270HX Plus advantage.

PassMark multithread scores 48270 versus 33802, a 42.8% lead. PassMark single-thread scores 4764 versus 4124, a 15.5% lead. PassMark physics scores 3843 versus 3021, a 27.2% lead. These results are consistent across the PassMark suite, with the 270HX Plus leading between 15.5% and 57.5% depending on workload.

The largest PassMark gap appears in floating-point math: 163567 versus 103842, a 57.5% lead. Integer math shows 122449 versus 83147, a 47.3% lead. Data compression shows 493179 versus 332508, a 48.3% lead. Random string sorting shows 60020 versus 40357, a 48.7% lead. Data encryption shows 37813 versus 26046, a 45.2% lead. Extended instructions show 39283 versus 27274, a 44% lead. Prime number finding shows 482 versus 337, a 43% lead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has zero wins in the database.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The largest multi-core gap appears in Cinebench R23, where the 270HX Plus scores 41913 versus 18747 for the 358H, a 123.6% lead. PassMark multithread shows a 42.8% lead (48270 versus 33802).

Q: Do the processors differ in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The 358H supports LPDDR5X memory with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the 270HX Plus supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s. The 358H has higher memory bandwidth despite losing all benchmarks.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The 270HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The 358H has a locked multiplier.

Q: How do the processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The 270HX Plus leads in all single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4764 versus 4124, a 15.5% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5917 versus 2080, a 184.5% lead.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads. The 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither uses simultaneous multithreading.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-HX) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Cores | 20 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.40 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| L3 cache | 30 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | Arc B390 |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part number | SADST | SA4RAQ9ET |

| Release date | 2026-03-16 | 2026-01-04 |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

Both processors use 3 nm fabrication, have 192 KB L1 cache per core, 3 MB L2 cache per core, dual-channel memory buses, and do not support ECC memory. Both are active production mobile processors with no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The 270HX Plus releases later in the database timeline and carries a higher TDP rating of 55 W versus 25 W for the 358H. The 358H compensates with faster memory support and a more advanced integrated GPU (Arc B390), but the recorded benchmarks show no workload where that advantage translates into a win. The 270HX Plus delivers higher average benchmark scores, sits at a higher percentile rank, and outperforms the 358H in every measured category.